'Edit this': Fox News host anchor skewered for 'misleading' Trump trial analysis

A Fox News anchor's explanation of jury instructions delivered in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial has legal experts and journalists scrambling to provide context they say he confused or skipped.

Anchor John Roberts took to X Wednesday afternoon to explain what he thought were Justice Juan Merchan's instructions to the 12 New Yorkers tasked with determining Trump's innocence or guilt in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's falsifying business records case.

"Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict," wrote Roberts. "4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict."

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

According to national security attorney Bradley Moss this analysis just isn't true.

"People keep harping on this but are missing the context," Moss explained. "They have to be unanimous that Trump falsified the records and did so with the intent to commit another crime. They do not have to be unanimous on what the other crime was: that’s the rule under NY law."

ALSO READ: Trump just endorsed this Virginia congressional candidate whose social media isn’t so MAGA

Soon Robert's X post was flooded with responses demanding he address what critics argued was an actively misleading response.

"Not factual, an intentional misrepresentation of the facts and NY law," replied filmmaker Jillian Hurley.

"You might want to edit this because it’s misleading people," added the Bulwark national political reporter Mark Caputo.

"JUDGE MERCHAN DID NOT F---ING DO THIS," University of Texas Law Professor Lee Kovarsky replied. "If a law says NO VEHICLES IN THE PARK & list of vehicles includes mopeds and motorcycles, all the instruction means is that you need unanimous conclusion of vehicle but not unanimous on whether vehicle was moped or harley."

"MAGA loves lying about Trump’s NYC case in an attempt to undermine our justice system," said Harry Sisson. "This is not what Judge Merchan said. Not even close."

Roberts later clarified there was "more nuance" than his initial analysis revealed in response to a confused reader's query.

"It is more nuanced than that," Roberts wrote. "All 12 need unanimity that Trump committed a crime. But the underlying unlawful means is a smorgasbord they can pick from - and they don't all need to agree on what it was."

Recommended Links: